Friday, July 24th 2020

Intel 10th Gen Core i9 KA Series Listed, More Comet Lake-S CPUs Incoming?

This one is sort of a brain-scratcher. Storefronts have started listing Core i9 KA versions of Intel's 10th Gen processors based on Comet Lake-S. The A part of the suffix is one we've never seen Intel use before - the K denotes an unlocked multiplier, which allows for chip overclocking, and Intel's F chips denote ones without integrated graphics built into the silicon. however, KA is a new one. It's being postulated online that these could be CPUs that don't achieve Intel's Boost clocks - but are capable enough of running at the stipulated base clocks for their K-only cousin.

These have been listed on Lithuanian shops, and pricing seems to be mostly in-line with that of Intel's F CPUs. The listed CPUs are the Core i9-10900KA (part number BX8070110900KA), with a 3.7 GHz Base clock, for €525; the Core i9-10850KA (BX8070110850KA) with a 3.6 GHz base clock, for €485; the Core i9-10700KA (BX8070110700KA) with a 3.8 GHz base clock, for €408; and the Core i9-10600KA (X8070110600KA) with a 4.1 GHz base clock, for €278. All CPUs also seem to have the same L3 cache size. That Core i9 naming scheme on the 10700KA and 10600KA though... Seems very, very strange.
Price comparison within the site shows that these are priced right alongside their i9 F and i7 F counterparts, give or take 2%, so... Maybe Intel is further cherry-picking chips so as to further saturate the market with their offerings whilst grabbing as much money as they can from each one? The Lithuanian retailer that's the source of the leak says in-house samples of these CPUs for sale will be available come August 9th.
Sources: via Tom's Hardware, momomo_us @ Twitter
Add your own comment

28 Comments on Intel 10th Gen Core i9 KA Series Listed, More Comet Lake-S CPUs Incoming?

#2
ironwolf
Thank you Intel for even more confusion with your model # nomenclature. :rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#3
BorisDG
LOL! They have the whole alphabet in front of them ... T, E, TE, K, KS... and now KA
Posted on Reply
#4
X71200
I'm assuming the i9 part on lower end CPUs is probably an unprofessional listing of the retailer.

In the meanwhile, I just ordered an X570 Taichi. Going to be dropping my 3600 in it and maining that before Vermeer arrives, maybe even get a pair of 4000 RAM and tweak that for keks.
Posted on Reply
#7
john_
Maybe they should have called this series "Meteor shower".
Posted on Reply
#8
TheUnbrained
KA is short for "keine ahnung" in german, which means "dont know" in english... well i think this fits to that lineup tho
Posted on Reply
#9
halcyon
When in doubt, carpet bomb the market with SKUs.

The confused consumer will just buy the one with most brand recognition.
Posted on Reply
#10
HisDivineOrder
KA will be for Contact-free, Free-range CPU's grown in an environment with classical music playing.
Posted on Reply
#11
ARF
The old naming convention with Pentium 66 MHz, Pentium 100 MHz, Pentium 133 MHz, Pentium 2 233 MHz, Pentium 3 933 MHz, Pentium 4 2.4 GHz, Pentium 4 3.6 GHz;
Athlon XP 1600+, Athlon 64 3700+, Athlon 64 X2 4400+ was much better.

This naming convention where the names themselves mean absolutely nothing and are mostly meaningless in nature, is quite weak and should be rethought.


Intel has a very complex binning process, and the result of it is their "understanding" that small variations in ASIC quality should warrant new marketing name, hence you have non-K SKUs, T SKUs, S SKUs, K SKUs, KS SKUs, KF SKUs, KFS SKUs, and now the newest breed KA SKUs... :Laugh:

They should simply put the number of cores and threads in the name, the frequency, and the relative generation. That will be enough.

For example, a 4 GHz 10th gen 8-core/16-thread should be simply Core i9-X16T @ 4GHz.
Posted on Reply
#12
Th3pwn3r
They really have awful people working at Intel coming up with these naming schemes and even worse that people approve them.
Posted on Reply
#13
mechtech
I was going to guess Kick A55 :)
Posted on Reply
#14
TranceHead
ARF
The old naming convention with Pentium 66 MHz, Pentium 100 MHz, Pentium 133 MHz, Pentium 2 233 MHz, Pentium 3 933 MHz, Pentium 4 2.4 GHz, Pentium 4 3.6 GHz;
Athlon XP 1600+, Athlon 64 3700+, Athlon 64 X2 4400+ was much better.

This naming convention where the names themselves mean absolutely nothing and are mostly meaningless in nature, is quite weak and should be rethought.


Intel has a very complex binning process, and the result of it is their "understanding" that small variations in ASIC quality should warrant new marketing name, hence you have non-K SKUs, T SKUs, S SKUs, K SKUs, KS SKUs, KF SKUs, KFS SKUs, and now the newest breed KA SKUs... :Laugh:

They should simply put the number of cores and threads in the name, the frequency, and the relative generation. That will be enough.

For example, a 4 GHz 10th gen 8-core/16-thread should be simply Core i9-X16T @ 4GHz.
Not sure why you'd include the athlon 64 +3700 in that lot.
The +3700 was a 2.2ghz part., the 3700 was meaningless (pushed as a comparative performance number, but who are we kidding, it was meaningless)
Posted on Reply
#15
ARF
TranceHead
Not sure why you'd include the athlon 64 +3700 in that lot.
The +3700 was a 2.2ghz part., the 3700 was meaningless (pushed as a comparative performance number, but who are we kidding, it was meaningless)
3700+ is a performance equivalent rating which means that it's as fast as a 3.7 GHz CPU from the competition.
At that time, AMD had vastly higher IPC.


www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Athlon+64+3700%2B&id=71


www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+4+3.60GHz&id=1079
Posted on Reply
#16
Mussels
Moderprator
the performance was equivalent to a 1GHz Pentium III, from memory

so a 3700x was 3.7x faster than a 1GHz P3
Posted on Reply
#17
cueman
naah,K,KF or KA...its still 14nm cpu..im dissapointment, even 10nm cpu goes future...

looks its hard to intel make 10nm cpu and 7nm cpu even more....


is it now 2021 when we see 10nm cpu from intel?.. looks that...

and is it really 2022 when intel can offer 7nm cpu..?? maybe ..yes.


so it mean when intel have 7nm out amd has then 5nm out....but its ok, different 5nm and 7nm its small if we compare amd 7nm and intel 14nm cpus..

still matter of time..

i hope intel learn now something...you must work all of time,not be lausy...lol,hmm,but also, i cant still understand how amd can get 7nm cpu so early...


i might buy amd 7nm cpu if i dont know that intels variant of 10nm and 7nm cpus are faster and better efficiency thsn amds ones,but they are..so i wait...
.

but,anyway,so its not anymore 2020,its 2021...
Posted on Reply
#18
AusWolf
Yields must be terrible if they have to rely on so many non-turbo designations within a single generation. Intel trying to save the sinking Skylake-ship...

The next designation is going to be Core i9-10***SH and CR (short for sh*t and cr*p) which are going to be be 10-core, 10-thread parts with base clocks as low as 800 MHz. The difference is that the SH chips will feature turbo speeds up to 1.2 GHz, while the CR ones will not.
Posted on Reply
#19
watzupken
Whatever Intel is trying to do, I feel it is just annoying/ confusing people even more with all sorts of funny model for basically the same processor. Slapping some random alphabets in the model number without being clear about the difference is not helping.
Posted on Reply
#20
EarthDog
Mussels
the performance was equivalent to a 1GHz Pentium III, from memory

so a 3700x was 3.7x faster than a 1GHz P3
Maybe that performance metric is true. But the naming convention of those AMD CPUs are based on the equivalent clock speed/performance of the competition at that time... in the case of a x2 3800+ was Pentium 4/Pentium D variants with the higher clock speeds. AMD needed to let general consumers know that clockspeed wasn't all that mattered and named their CPUs this way.
Posted on Reply
#21
Lord_Soth
MrIronGolem27
10900KMS incoming bois
I think it is more appropriate 10900RBMK :laugh:
EarthDog
Maybe that performance metric is true. But the naming convention of those AMD CPUs are based on the equivalent clock speed/performance of the competition at that time... in the case of a x2 3800+ was Pentium 4/Pentium D variants with the higher clock speeds. AMD needed to let general consumers know that clockspeed wasn't all that mattered and named their CPUs this way.
The performance rating is related to the K7 Athlon 1000 mhz not the Pentium III.
Posted on Reply
#22
Mussels
Moderprator
Lord_Soth
I think it is more appropriate 10900RBMK :laugh:



The performance rating is related to the K7 Athlon 1000 mhz not the Pentium III.
ahah! at least i remembered the 1GHz part right
Posted on Reply
#23
EarthDog
Lord_Soth
I think it is more appropriate 10900RBMK :laugh:



The performance rating is related to the K7 Athlon 1000 mhz not the Pentium III.
Links please. Ive ways read it was the clock speed/performance of the equivilant intel, not something generations behind.
Posted on Reply
#24
chaosmassive
i will be waiting for i9 10900 FAK U for mobile chip.
it will be selling like hotcakes.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment